Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

He's from Alabama, what would you expect?

The entire bit was great. Maher talked about the Bush twins enlisting, ab out all the right-wing bloggers enlisting, about evangelical ministers urging their congregations to enlist. That's probably what really ticked off Bacchus.

Bachus allegedly said, "In treason, one definition is to undermine the effort or national security of our country."

Only problem with that claim is that it just ain't so:

Legal definition of Treason
Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

Constructive treason. Treason imputed to a person by law from his conduct or course of actions, though his deeds taken severally do not amount to actual treason. This doctrine is not known in the United States.

And here's a plain English definition of treason as defined in the Constitution:

"Criminal act of betraying one's country as defined in Article II section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." The act of treason requires overt acts, including disclosing government security secrets to other countries, friendly or unfriendly, when the information could cause harm to American security. Treason may also include revealing secrets to an unfriendly country, such as the design of a bomber a private company for the Defense Department is building. It also includes spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the government's operation and its agencies, particularly those involved in security."

Further digging reveals that the Supreme Court has ruled that the crime of treason consists of two parts: the overt act and treasonous intent.

This may all seem like legal hair-splitting that will inevitably lead to the courts demanding that we eat our brain-damaged relatives, but this is VERY IMPORTANT:

Criticizing the government is NOT treason, at least not according to the U.S. Constitution -- and when it becomes treason, the Constitution will just be another one of those meaningless pieces of paper, another worthless IOU from the federal government that our current president keeps harping about.

You know, if I'm not mistaken, Hitler was actually APPOINTED by Hindenburg as Chancellor. He wasn't elected. Once there he seized power.

And if Maher has the right to say what he wants, so does the congressman.

Personally, I think they both should shut up.

Oh, and for the record, Bush WAS lawfully elected.

You're both right and wrong about Hitler. In January 1933, Hindenburg did appoint Hitler chanellor. Hitler called for democratic elections. The election happened two months later and, at first, Hitler seemed to have lost. Then they disallowed the Communist seats, and Hitler won in the recount. In 2000, Bush disallowed more than enough legitimate black votes in Florida to allow him to seize the state's electoral votes. If you're going to seize power, steal from the best and improve on the model -- as Herr Rove does.

Bush was not lawfully elected. He got the job only because the Supreme Court appointed him, just as Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor 67 years earlier. If you're going to seize power, steal from the best and improve on the model. The whole Bush cabal should be tossed in jail, and that's only because I'm opposed to capital punishment.

As for Congressman Bachus having the right to say what he wants, yes indeed, he does. But as a federal lawmaker, when he makes a deliberate and public attempt to cost another person his job for what that person said, then the Congressman is guilty of censorship. Bachus could (and frequently does) say any stupid sanctimonious thing he wants -- that's free speech. But as I've often said here, you can say anything you want but you must take responsibility for what you say. This supercilious right wing clown must take responsibility for his action as a government censor.

Mike: I basically agree with you about Congressman Bachus, but I think all of our irate reactions have played right into his hands. Like Bill Maher, I had never heard of this blowhard before this and that's the point. He wanted publicity and he got it. Not that he gives a shit what any of us think, because he's only playing to his constituency back home in his banjo state. He knows damn well that nothing is going to happen to Maher, but this is just an easy way to make him look like he's actually doing something about those damn traitorous liberals, when all he's really doing is preaching to the choir. It's a lot easier than actually doing something substantial or material that really might support the troops, something that he as a Congressman is presumably in a better position to do than a comedian and commentator on a subscription only network.

I think Bachus's statements are part of a greater effort to jump on, demonize and discredit everybody who speaks out against the regeme. They're preaching to the choir, sure, but they're also doing what they do best: diverting attention from all criticism. If you ask them about stem-cell research, they ask why do you want to kill "babies." If you ask them about our torturing Arab prisoners, they talk about all the good they're doing in Arab nations, as if it's okay to torture prisoners as long as you build a couple of schools.

This past season Maher has made a major effort to "get both sides" -- both in terms of guests and audience members. The Republicans don't want to play. The best they can get is a dimwit who is going to look stupid next to the mandatory celebrity guest. They can't engage in honest debate where they're likely to have to answer questions to defend their positions without diversion.

If you don't like a teevee guy, you don't have to watch him. But congresspeople pass laws that affect us all. We can't turn them off. Even the silliest, most obviously stupid of the bunch (no matter what party or persuasion) has a vote, a microphone, and a press chief.

What people like Bachus and Ann Coulter are doing is far worse that simply attempting to discredit those who speak out against the current administration. They are trying to destroy the 1st amendment by equating criticism with treason. This is why the founders spelled out both a definition of treason and a right to free speech in the constitution (well, okay, they had to ammend it first) -- because in many not-so-free countries, criticizing the powers that be IS considered treason, and that was distinctly not the kind of nation the founders wanted.

Maher's Response to Bachus
(thanks to Glenn Hauman)

Fruit, by Bill Maher

First, I had never heard of Congressman Bachus before this. Now lots of people have heard of him. You're welcome, Congressman, glad I could help get your Q rating up.

By the way, are we sure he's really a Congressman? Maybe he's just a guy with a fax machine. You know how fact checking goes these days.

I could go on and on, but this is too ridiculous, so I'll just say this: I'm not a congressman, I'm a comedian. There's nothing I can really do to help or hurt our troops (although anyone who's watched my shows or read my books in the last twelve years knows I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the military).

But a congressman, there's someone who can actually DO SOMETHING to help our troops. In fact, a case could be made that it's a lot more treasonous for someone in his position to be wasting his time yelling at a comedian. Shouldn't he be training his outrage at such problems as troops not having enough armor? Wouldn't that ACTUALLY support our troops more? And citizens of this country who claim to support our troops should write this man and tell him GET BACK TO WORK! DO SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO SOLDIERS IN IRAQ!

And by the way, these "comments" were part of a longer, scripted comedy piece in the modest proposal tradition. I can see why administration supporters would want to deflect attention away from the gist of the piece, which was this: now that we can't meet our recruiting goals, maybe it's the people who were so gung ho for this war to begin with who should step up and go fight it. But of course it's always easier to distract people.

Finally, I would direct the Congressman to chapter 3 of my book "When You Ride Alone, You Ride with bin Laden." The accompanying poster shows a soldier, a cop, a fireman, and a teacher, and says, "We Say They're Our Heroes...But We Pay Them Like Chumps."

Maybe that's something else he could look into when he gets done with me.

And now Tom Delay is getting into the act:

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/27/delay.law.order/index.html

Yeah, but Delay has a point. He's never advocated the killing of judges, and the dialogue in Law and Order: CI basically borders on slander, and that's not protected speech.

Bill Maher says:

"There's nothing I can really do to help or hurt our troops (although anyone who's watched my shows or read my books in the last twelve years knows I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the military)."

Wonder if Maher's gonna take his own advice and "step up" to support the military?

You miss Maher's point by a mile.
His point was that all those who were hawkish about the Iraq war should now "step up" since recruitment is down.
If stating that you support the troops means you are a hypocrite unless you "step up" than every soccer mom with a magnetic ribbon on her SUV should be in basic training right now.

About DeLay, while he never explicitly advocated violence against judges its kinda irresponsible for someone in his position to make a statement like this:

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."

During a time when attacks on judges are still so fresh in the publics minds. And its doubly irresponsible for him to make that statement during the Schiavo case what with so many of the extreme right to life people being all worked up...its not like killing someone they disagree with is something they haven't done before.

For the record (to eclark), Bush was not legally elected as far as we know. The conservative business-owned media just might be lying to us. Reporters were told not to follow up on the stolen election story. There is no free press in America.

But wouldn't the media follow up, since it's allegedly liberal? :) I say that as a member of the media, which to be honest, the most important agenda is getting the damn thing out on time rather than push a political one.

Oh geez, you're making me feel important. Let's handle this one topic at a time.

1. "You miss Maher's point by a mile."
No, I didn't. I got what he was saying. Yet saying you support the troops while doing nothing but making snide remarks about the war and their efforts is hardly what I call support. I also understand that Maher's being what he calls "funny". I don't. Here's the gist of it and what Maher knows, which is why he's cracking wise on the Congressman. Bachus is blowing hot air. He has no grounds to get Maher fired or prosecuted.

2. Delay has said nothing more hateful against judges anyone has said against the Supreme Court judges that everyone says "elected" Bush. In fact, Harry Reid, the Senate Minority leader, and no less than Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and "Chuckie" Shumer, have said far worse against the judicial nominees on the Senate floor. Yet, no one seems to have a problem with it. I've yet to hear one democrat or liberal express concern that maybe they're putting judges lives at stake. Hell, MoveOn.org. portrayed Bill Frist as a Star Wars villain. You would think they'd be a little careful about criticizing politicians when we already have people throwing handgrenades at the President. Apparently, it's okay for the left to criticize judicial decisions because "we know what they mean".

3. "For the record (to eclark), Bush was not legally elected as far as we know."

For the record, "You're wrong." You need to check the Constitution. All the popular election did/does is assign the electors. It is the ELECTORS who choose the president and they cast all of their votes for George Bush. Al Gore even attempted to get those that were not locked into their votes by their state constituitions to switch and vote for him. I don't have a problem with that. The Constituition allows it. Still, no one changed their votes and Gore LOST. LEGALLY.

If you want to blame someone for losing Florida, blame Gore. All the idiot had to do was ask for a STATEWIDE recount instead of trying to handpick the counties where he thought he could pick up enough votes. He lost. Get over it.

I was actually referring to the John Kerry election.

I believe it is still illegal to commit fraud.

The Diebold machines seemed programmed to commit fraud, but that was hardly the only method used to steal the election. It doesn't matter if the Dems do nothing, fraud is still fraud. It is still illegal. "W" was not chosen by the people of this country. The media does not care.

eclark:

An expert semanticist like yourself can surely see the difference between criticizing judicial candidates and making veiled threats against sitting judges. (Yes, Delay later apologized for his "inartful" remarks, but he still made them.) Or did I put words in your mouth again?

1. "You miss Maher's point by a mile."
No, I didn't. I got what he was saying. Yet saying you support the troops while doing nothing but making snide remarks about the war and their efforts is hardly what I call support.

Yes, you did. Saying you support the troops but not the idea of war with Iraq and being a gung-ho proponent of the war (whether you are a politician or journalist or Tv pundit) are two entirely different things and its the so-called "chickenhawks" that talk big and tough from the comfort of their radio show/tv show/home that Maher was poking fun at.

2. Delay has said nothing more hateful against judges anyone has said against the Supreme Court judges that everyone says "elected" Bush. In fact, Harry Reid, the Senate Minority leader, and no less than Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and "Chuckie" Shumer, have said far worse against the judicial nominees on the Senate floor. Yet, no one seems to have a problem with it. I've yet to hear one democrat or liberal express concern that maybe they're putting judges lives at stake.

Well when you can produce evidence of a radical pro-choice group or individual murdering conservative judges and setting up online hit lists I'll worry about what the dems are saying about judicial nominees.

Hell, MoveOn.org. portrayed Bill Frist as a Star Wars villain. You would think they'd be a little careful about criticizing politicians when we already have people throwing handgrenades at the President. Apparently, it's okay for the left to criticize judicial decisions because "we know what they mean".

Wow, reach much? DeLay made veiled threats ( and I'm confident his intentions aren't to do physical harm to these judges but there are whackos who might think otherwise) toward judges during a highly emotional time when Randall Terry and his ilk are fanning the flames. There is a history of extremists murdering judges in these types of cases and there was even the Atlanta case fresh in the publics mind at the time.
DeLay's statments were irresponsible given his position, the situation that was going on and the types of people who were actively involved in it.

1. Maher's comments that the military had already recruited all the "low lying fruit" is about as supportive as a white man calling me "Sambo" and not wanting to be perceived as racist. It was a not so subtle comment about the type of people who would willing volunteer to go into the military during a time of war. It wasn't funny, either.

2. That doesn't even deserve comment. You think there aren't any radical left groups that are violent? And to be honest, if anything a conservative judge is more likely to BE a target of anyone with an axe to grind against the judiciary in this country. God knows, LIBERAL judges aren't putting anyone in jail.

3. Delay made no threats of violence against any judges. He didn't call for it, didn't sanction, but apologized for the wait everyone was interpreting it. I myself wouldn't have apologized, It's like companies that settle out of court because it's cheaper than fighting, it's automatically assumed yo're guilty of what you just apologized for. Look at you, you're saying the man made veiled threats in one sentence, then saying you know he didn't really mean that in another. Well, either they were threats or they weren't.

The Atlanta case had nothing to do with anything Delay said the perpetrator was Black, most likely a Democrat. And the chicago murder was about a case that happened long before Delay ever opened his mouth.

And you ask ME if I'm reaching.

re: "You think there aren't any radical left groups that are violent?"

Well, apparently the FBI and ATF agree with you on that one. They recently announced that we should be more concerned about animal rights activists and environmental groups than Al Qaeda.

Sounds to me like yet another chorus of "Hey! Look over there!" But I'm just an old cynical "liberal". I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that animal rights activists are probably much easier to catch than real terrorists.